Judgment :- R.BANUMATHI,J. 1. The Original Side Appeal arises out of the decree and judgment dated 25.09.2008 in C.S.No.783 of 2000 in and by which the learned single Judge declared the Proceedings of the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board in No.S4/45202/95 dated 19.04.1996 fixing the final cost to the allotments made in favour of members of the Plaintiff Association as null and void and also granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demanding the final cost as per the said proceedings. 2. After the disposal of the suit, the Plaintiff Association had filed writ petition -W.P.No.9768 of 2010 seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to issue sale deeds in favour of the members of the Plaintiff Association. On being stated by the respondent/plaintiff, the Writ Petition was posted along with the Original Side Appeal and heard together. By consent of appellants and respondent, both the appeal and writ petition are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Factual background in nutshell:- Tamil Nadu Housing Board [TNHB] floated Nolambur Neighbourhood Phase -I and II Scheme. In the month of January 1988, TNHB issued notification inviting applications from the public for allotment of Plots at Nolambur. After conducting lot, regular allotment orders were issued to all the selected applicants in their respective categories HIG-I; HIG-II; MIG; LIG-I and LIG-II. At the time of allotment, cost of the Plot was tentatively worked out to Rs.80,000/- per ground and in the allotment order, it has been mentioned that such tentative price is subject to revision on account of the anticipated increase of the land cost and finalisation of development costs, provision of amenities etc. In the said order, it was also informed that the final price of the site due to the increased cost of development charges and provision of amenities will be determined only after all the suits filed for the determination of the the Land Acquisition Cases are finally settled and after the cost of amenities, development charges etc. are finalised. The allottees have also entered into Lease-cum-Sale Agreement for the allotment and after paying the monthly instalments took over the Plot and also undertaking to pay the final price. In the said Lease-cum-Sale Agreement, a clause was stipulated incorporating condition Nos.5, 6 and 9 regarding payment of final price. are finalised. The allottees have also entered into Lease-cum-Sale Agreement for the allotment and after paying the monthly instalments took over the Plot and also undertaking to pay the final price. In the said Lease-cum-Sale Agreement, a clause was stipulated incorporating condition Nos.5, 6 and 9 regarding payment of final price. In the impugned Proceedings No.S4/45202/95 dated 19.04.1996, final price was fixed at Rs.1,99,000/-per ground as on 31.03.1996 and the same is applicable to the allottees to whom the allotment was made up to 1989 90. The price was fixed for allotments made from 1990-91 to 1995-96 as per the statement enclosed thereon. Pursuant to the Proceedings of the Managing Director of TNHB and fixing the final price, demand notice was sent to the individual allottees. Thereafter, allottees have formed an Association and instead of challenging the individual demand notices, Plaintiff Association has filed the suit challenging only the Proceedings of the Managing Director fixing the final price at Rs.1,99,000/-as on 31.03.1996 for the allotments made up to 1989-90. 4. Briefly stated case of Plaintiff is as follows:- Pursuant to the notification, members of Plaintiff Association applied for allotment and some of the allottees have paid the entire cost in lumpsum and some of them opted for payment by instalments. Allottees have paid the entire tentative cost in one lumpsum or by instalments and they were under the impression that there will not be any further demand of cost from TNHB. But to the surprise and shock of the allottees, 3rd Defendant had sent a communication dated 31.05.1996 under various letters informing the allottees including the members of Plaintiff Association stating that final cost of the land is arrived at Rs.1,99,000/- per ground for the allottes upto 1988-89 as on 31.3.1996 and that they are liable to pay the differential cost either in one lumpsum or by instalments, which is two and half times the tentative cost. Case of Plaintiff is that Defendants ought to have finalised the development charges and the final price even in 1990 itself and fixation of final price cannot be protracted indefinitely. Allottees cannot be held liable for the full expenditure of TNHB. Defendants have no right in asking arbitrarily any amount by way of final cost. Plaintiff Association made repeated representations requesting the Defendants to give details with reference to fixation of final cost. Allottees cannot be held liable for the full expenditure of TNHB. Defendants have no right in asking arbitrarily any amount by way of final cost. Plaintiff Association made repeated representations requesting the Defendants to give details with reference to fixation of final cost. Defendants did not disclose as to how the final cost was arrived at. Plaintiff Association has also filed W.P.No.11879 of 1996 challenging the demand notice. Even during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, Plaintiff Association has filed the suit in the year 2000 praying for the relief of declaration that the Proceedings No.S4/45202/95 dated 19.04.1996 of the 1st Defendant is null and void and for consequential Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from demanding any final cost pursuant to the aforesaid Proceedings. 5. Refuting the plaint averments and contending that the suit is not maintainable, TNHB has filed written statement stating that Plaintiff had not issued the mandatory notice under Section 138 of TNHB Act and non-issuance of notice under Section 138 of TNHB Act is fatal for the institution of the suit. Plots at Nolambur Phase-I were allotted during 1988-89 by adopting the tentative cost and after completion of the development work, cost was finalised. Even while allotting the Plots at Nolambur, it has been clearly mentioned in the respective allotment orders that cost is purely tentative one and such tentative price is subject to revision on account of the anticipated increase of the land cost and finalisation of development costs and provision of amenities etc. and fixation of final price of the land so fixed is conclusive and final. In Clause 5 of the Lease-cum-Sale agreements, which have been executed by the allottees, it has been specified that the price of the Plot is tentatively fixed and the same is subject to revision. The land cost for Nolambur Phase I Scheme was finalised after taking into consideration of the actual land cost, development charges and interest charges up to 31.3.1996 as Rs.1,99,000/-per ground. This rate was made applicable to the allotments made up to 1989-90. For the allotments made on or after 1990-91, cost was fixed by charging ruling rate in interest on cost fixed as on 31.03.1996 i.e. Rs.1,99,000/-per ground. Hence the fixation of cost is as per the rules and is just and proper. This rate was made applicable to the allotments made up to 1989-90. For the allotments made on or after 1990-91, cost was fixed by charging ruling rate in interest on cost fixed as on 31.03.1996 i.e. Rs.1,99,000/-per ground. Hence the fixation of cost is as per the rules and is just and proper. Allottees, who have accepted the conditions and undertaking that they have to pay necessary increase in the cost, cannot raise objection for the fixation of price, which is in clear violation of terms of the agreement. 6. On the above pleadings in the trial Court, ten issues were framed. On the side of Plaintiff Association S.Nazirudeen, the then President of Plaintiff Association was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P36 were marked. On the side of Defendants, M.Ramakrishnan, the then Head of the Nolambur Scheme was examined as DW1. Mr.A.Francis Roche, the then Chief Accounts Officer of 1st Defendant was examined as DW2 and Exs.D1 to D12 were marked. 7. Upon consideration of rival contentions, the learned single Judge recorded the findings answering the issues as under:- Issues Findings On Issue Nos.1, 2 and 5: 1) Whether the demand of final cost made by the Defendants is barred by limitation? 2) Whether the Defendants have got right to finalise the final cost of the plots at any point of time notwithstanding the period stipulated in Lease-cum-Sale agreement? 5) Whether the Defendants are justified in demanding the final cost after a period of eight years? As per Clause 9 of Lease-cum-Sale agreement, the Managing Director of TNHB is empowered to arrive at the final price after the conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings and after determining of the cost of amenities and Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were answered in favour of the defendants. It was held that Defendants are justified in demanding the final cost after a period of eight years and Issue No.5 was answered in favour of the defendants. On Issue Nos.3,6 and 7: 3) Whether the demand of final cost by the Defendants is sustainable? 6) Whether the quantum of final cost arrived at is proper and sustainable? 7) Whether the increase of final cost can be more than 250% of the original tentative cost? On Issue Nos.3,6 and 7: 3) Whether the demand of final cost by the Defendants is sustainable? 6) Whether the quantum of final cost arrived at is proper and sustainable? 7) Whether the increase of final cost can be more than 250% of the original tentative cost? Defendants received the amount from the National Highways Authority of India and the Defendants had surplus and that the surplus available in the hand without giving credit to the said amount, the working given is not a correct exercise Defendants are not justified in capitalisation of interest. Increase of final cost by 250% of the original tentative cost is not supported by any material and Issue Nos.3,6 and 7 were answered infavour of the Plaintiff. Answering the Issues 3,4,6,7 and 8 infavour of Plaintiff, learned Judge declared that the Proceedings of 1st Defendant in S4/45202/95 dated 19.04.1996 fixing the final price is null and void and unenforceable and also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner demanding the final price so fixed. 8. In the trial Court, even though the trial Court framed several issues and inter alia contentions and arguments were advanced, during arguments, respondent/plaintiff Association seemed to have emphasised upon only one issue viz., interest and the same is reflected in the judgment as under: "19. ...... Learned counsel for the plaintiff is fair enough to state before this Court that the plaintiffs restrict their claim only to the issue of capitalisation interest charges." Before the single judge, since respondent/plaintiff Association restricted their argument only regarding interest, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court asked whether the members of Plaintiff Association would be satisfied if capitalisation of interest is made as a simple interest. The members of Plaintiff Association were not agreeable to such a course and insisted upon advancing the arguments on all the issues and on the merits of the matter. 9. On behalf of the appellants -Tamil Nadu Housing Board (in short, "TNHB"), the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Gomathinayagam inter alia raised the following submissions:- In view of non-compliance of Section 138 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961, the suit is not maintainable. Different causes of action of the members of the plaintiff Association cannot be clubbed to file the suit by the Association. Different causes of action of the members of the plaintiff Association cannot be clubbed to file the suit by the Association. Instead of challenging the individual demand notices issued to the individual allottees, the plaintiff Association has chosen to challenge Ex.P.21 -Proceedings of Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing board in Ref.No.S.4/45202/95 dated 19.4.1996 Without seeking for further relief of direction to execute the sale deeds in favour of the individual members of the plaintiff Association and without paying proper court fee, the suit is not maintainable. As per the terms of allotment and terms and conditions of Lease cum Sale Agreement, the allottees have agreed to pay the final price fixed by the Managing Director and they are estopped from challenging the impugned proceedings of the Managing Director fixing the final price. The calculation adopted by the single Judge is erroneous and the learned Judge erred in saying that there was surplus in the suit Scheme. The learned judge ought not to have taken into account the compensation claimed by the National Highways Authority of India. 10. Refuting the contentions, Mr.K.M.Vijayan, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent/plaintiff has contended that notwithstanding the terms of Lease cum Sale Agreement, Tamil Nadu Housing Board cannot fix an exorbitant amount as final price and capitalise the interest. It was further argued that TNHB cannot abuse its dominant position and the Court has to see whether the final price fixed is equitable. Taking us through various calculations reiterating the findings of single Judge, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the excess amount demanded by the Housing Board is not supported by any materials and the final price fixed at Rs.1,99,000/- per ground is highly excessive and the learned judge rightly decreed the suit and the judgment does not warrant interference. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent placing reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SHEELA DEVI AND OTHERS, ( (2003) 12 SCC 497 ) contended that determination of cost of house/flat or escalation of cost cannot be arbitrary or erratic and the appellant Housing Board has to broadly satisfy the escalation by placing material on record to justify the escalation. 12. We have given anxious consideration to the pleadings, evidence, materials and the findings of the learned trial Judge and also the submissions. 13. 12. We have given anxious consideration to the pleadings, evidence, materials and the findings of the learned trial Judge and also the submissions. 13. Upon consideration of evidence and submissions, the following points arise for determination in this appeal: "1. Whether Ex.P.17 notice (9.6.2000) is sufficient compliance of Section 138 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act and whether in view of non-compliance of Section 138, the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff Association clubbing the causes of action of all its members is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit filed seeking declaration that Ex.P.21 -proceedings of the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board in S.4/45202/95 dated 19.4.1996 is null and void without seeking for further relief of obtaining sale deeds in the individual names of the members of the plaintiff Association is maintainable? 4. In the Writ Petition in W.P.No.9768 of 2010, whether the members of plaintiff Association are entitled for the writ of mandamus directing Tamil Nadu Housing Board to execute sale deed in favour of members of plaintiff Association? 5. Whether the allottees, having agreed to pay the final price both in the agreement as well as in the Lease cum Sale agreement, can turn round and challenge the fixation of final price? 6. Whether the learned single judge was right in going into the calculation and whether the finding of the learned single judge was right in saying that the final price fixed in the impugned proceedings is excessive? 7. To what relief, the parties are entitled to both in the appeal and in the writ petition?” 14. At the outset, certain facts need to be highlighted. Tamil Nadu Housing Board developed under Nolambur Neighbourhood Scheme Phase I Scheme and the total number of plots in Nolambur Phase I are 715 and Phase II are 84. 345 allottees of Nolambur Scheme formed plaintiff Association in August, 2006. By the impugned proceedings of Tamilnadu Housing Board in S.4/45202/95 dated 19.4.1996, the Managing Director fixed the final price per ground at Rs.1,99,000/- per ground as on 31.3.1996 for the allottees for whom allotments were made upto 1989-90. For the subsequent allotments, price was fixed at Rs.2,28,900/-; Rs.2,63,300; Rs.3,08,100/-; Rs.3,60,500/-; Rs.4,20,800/-; Rs.4,93,600/- for the allotment made during the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. For the subsequent allotments, price was fixed at Rs.2,28,900/-; Rs.2,63,300; Rs.3,08,100/-; Rs.3,60,500/-; Rs.4,20,800/-; Rs.4,93,600/- for the allotment made during the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. In pursuance to the said proceedings, individual demand notices like Exs.P.11 (No.C3/2721/88 dated 31.5.1996), Ex.P.12 (No.D1/9621/96 dated 3.6.1996) etc., were sent to the individual allottees. Thereafter plaintiff Association was formed and the Association had filed W.P.No.11879 of 1996 seeking for writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from demanding the difference in land cost re-fixed. Even during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the suit came to be filed seeking for declaration that the impugned proceedings of the Managing Director of Tamilnadu Housing Board in S.4/45202/95 dated 19.4.1996 is null and void and unenforceable. After filing of the suit, out of 345 allottees, 152 allottees paid the difference and obtained the sale deeds. After filing of the appeal, number of allottees, who are members of plaintiff Association have given undertaking agreeing to pay the final price and take the sale deed and that they would not proceed with the appeal. 15. Point No.1:- Non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 138 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act:- As pointed out earlier, under Ex.P.21 - proceedings of the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board in S.4/45202/95 dated 19.4.1996, the final price was fixed at Rs.1,99,000/- per ground as on 31.3.1996 for allotments which were made upto 1989-90 and in so far as the other allottees, rate per ground for allotments from 1990-91 to 1995-96 were as stated above. In pursuance to Ex.P.21 proceedings, individual demand notices were sent. Plaintiff Association has filed W.P.No.11879 of 1996 seeking for a writ of mandamus forbearing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board from demanding the re-fixed price. 16. As pointed out earlier, even during the pendency of the writ petition, the suit came to be filed on 21.6.2000. Before filing the suit, Ex.P.17 notice was issued under Section 138 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act on 9.6.2000. Even before expiry of 60 days, suit came to be filed on 21.6.2000. On behalf of the appellant -TNHB, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that even before expiry of two months, the suit came to be filed and in view of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 138, the suit is barred and non-compliance of Section 138 is fatal for institution of the suit. 17. On behalf of the appellant -TNHB, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that even before expiry of two months, the suit came to be filed and in view of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 138, the suit is barred and non-compliance of Section 138 is fatal for institution of the suit. 17. Per contra, onbehalf of the plaintiffs/respondents, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.M.Vijayan has contended that Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act was enacted in exercise of powers under Entry 18 List II of Constitution of India and Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act is a State enactment, whereas the Code of Civil Procedure is passed under List III and the Central Law will prevail. It was further submitted that as per Section 80(2) C.P.C, to obtain any immediate relief, suit could be filed by dispensing with the notice as per Section 80(2) C.P.C. and therefore notwithstanding non-issuance of notice, suit is maintainable. 18. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that for redressal of any grievance against Tamil Nadu Housing Board, either a suit or a writ petition or petition under Consumer Protection Act could be filed and while so Section 138 only contemplates issuance of notice only for filing of suit against Board. It was further argued that Section 138 does not speak anything about the filing of writ petition or the petition under Consumer Protection Act and therefore Section 138 cannot be resorted to by the appellant to raise objection as to the maintainability of the suit. 19. For filing suit against Tamil Nadu Housing Board, issuance of notice before 60 days of filing the suit is essential under Section 138. No suit against Board could be filed until the expiration of 60 days of notice served at Boards office. Section 138 reads as follows:- "138. 19. For filing suit against Tamil Nadu Housing Board, issuance of notice before 60 days of filing the suit is essential under Section 138. No suit against Board could be filed until the expiration of 60 days of notice served at Boards office. Section 138 reads as follows:- "138. Notice of Suit against Board etc.,:- No suit shall be instituted against the Board, or any member, or any officer of servant of the board, or any person acting under the direction of the Board, or of the Chairman or Managing Director of any officer or servant of the Board, in respect of any act done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule or regulation made there under until the expiration of sixty days next after written notice has been delivered or left at the boards office or the place of abode of such officer, servant or person, stating the causes of action, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the relief which he claims, and the plaint must contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left." 20. By a reading of Section 138, it is seen that Section 138 applies not only to past acts done, but also future acts intended to be done under the Act. The object of notice is to give opportunity to Tamil Nadu Housing Board to explain its point or to re-consider its position/decision or settle the matter. 21. The emphatic language of Section 138 makes it clear that notice under Section 138 is mandatory. Section 138 is in pari materia with Section 80(1) C.P.C. In each case, the Court must see (i) whether name, description and place of abode of the intending plaintiff are given; (ii) whether the cause of action and relief are set out; (iii) whether the notice has been delivered to the Boards registered office or appropriate authority; (iv) whether a suit is instituted after expiry of two months and (v) whether plaint contains a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. 22. By perusal of Ex.P.17 notice, it is seen that notice has been issued under Section 138 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act giving the plaintiffs address, defendants address, cause of action and the relief sought for. 22. By perusal of Ex.P.17 notice, it is seen that notice has been issued under Section 138 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act giving the plaintiffs address, defendants address, cause of action and the relief sought for. Ex.P.17 notice was issued on 9.6.2000 and within 12 days of Ex.P.17 notice, suit came to be filed on 21.6.2000. Even though Ex.P.17 is a notice issued under Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, the suit came to be filed even before expiry of two months stipulated in the Act. The mandatory requirement of expiry of two months after the notice has not been complied with. 23. Durational requirement of pre-suit notice under Section 138 of the TNHB Act is mandatory. It is not as if the plaintiff Association filed the suit immediately after the impugned proceedings (Ex.P.21 dated 19.4.1996). The suit came to be filed only in 2000 nearly four years after Ex.P.21 proceedings. In our considered view, there had been non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 138. 24. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents/plaintiffs contended that W.P.No.11879 of 1996 was filed by plaintiff Association and the same was pending and in the writ petition, Tamil Nadu Housing Board had filed the counter and thereby it must be deemed to be a constructive notice and therefore non-compliance of issuance of notice under Section 138 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act cannot be said to be fatal. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that regarding the non-compliance of durational requirement of pre-suit notice under Section 138, no issue was framed and no finding was recorded and therefore the appellant Board must be deemed to have waived that right. 25. The above contention does not merit acceptance. The issuance of notice under Section 138 is mandatory and in fact plaintiff Association was conscious about it by issuing Ex.P.17 notice. As pointed out earlier, Ex.P.17 notice is captioned as "Notice u/s 138 of TNHB Act, 1961 (17 of 1961)" and having captioned it as "Notice under section 138 of TNHB Act", the plaintiff Association ought to have complied with the statutory mandate of durational requirement. In our considered view, non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 138 is fatal to the plaintiffs case and this point is answered accordingly. 26. Point No.2:- Clubbing of different causes of action: -As pointed out earlier, Nolambur Phase I Scheme had 715 plots. In our considered view, non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 138 is fatal to the plaintiffs case and this point is answered accordingly. 26. Point No.2:- Clubbing of different causes of action: -As pointed out earlier, Nolambur Phase I Scheme had 715 plots. The category, size and number of plots are as under: The details of initial deposit, date of agreement and E.M.I are as under:- 27. As pointed out earlier, under Ex.P.21 final land price was fixed at Rs.1,99,000/-per ground for the allotments made in the 1988-89 and other prices are indicated in Para No.43. 28. In pursuant to the same, individual demand notices were sent in May/June 1996 calling upon the allottees to pay the final price of the land cost and also E.M.I. to be paid in equated sixty monthly instalments with interest at the rate of 18% per annum commencing from August 1996. After receipt of the individual demand notices, allottees have formed the Association in August 1996. As seen from Ex.P.1, the plaintiff Association was registered on 7.8.1996. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff Association on behalf of 345 allottees, who are from various categories of allottees viz., HIG I, HIG II, MIG, LIG-I and LIG-II. 29. As elaborated earlier, for allotments of different categories of plots, the allottees entered into agreements on various days. The initial deposit varies as well as equated monthly instalments also differ. Individual demand notices are also different. But the allotments pertaining to various categories of HIG I, HIG II, MIG, LIG I and LIG II were clubbed together. By clubbing different causes of action, the suit was filed under the pretext of filing it in the name of the Association. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, if really the individual allottees were aggrieved by demand of final price, they ought to have challenged the individual demand notices. Had the individual demand notices been so challenged seeking declaration that such demand notices are null and void, the Housing Board would have been able to show as to how the demand is justified; but that was not to be so. Under the pretext of challenging the proceedings of the Managing Director, the plaintiff Association has clubbed different causes of action and filed the suit. Under the pretext of challenging the proceedings of the Managing Director, the plaintiff Association has clubbed different causes of action and filed the suit. The plaintiff is not right in clubbing different causes of action and the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. 30. The learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs contended that as per Section 20 of the Registration of Societies Act, the Association can sue and be sued and therefore no objection could be taken for filing of the suit by the Association. Placing reliance upon decision of CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD VS. T.N.GANAPATHY ( (1990) 1 SCC 608 ), the learned Senior Counsel contended that in the said case, the suit was filed for self and on behalf of all allottees of low income group settled in Ashok Nagar. In the said case, the suit was filed by an allottee of LIG plot in Ashok Nagar seeking for permanent injunction restraining Tamil Nadu Housing Board from enforcing the demand and in the said suit, the Supreme court held as under:. "9. It is true that each of the allottees is interested individually in fighting out the demand separately made or going to be made on him and, thus, separate causes of action arise in the case, but, that does not make Order 1, Rule 8 inapplicable. Earlier there was some doubt about the Rule covering such a case which now stands clarified by the Explanation introduced by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads as follows: Explanation: For the purpose of determining whether the persons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons have the same cause of action as the persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or defend the suit, as the case may be. The objects and reasons for the amendment were stated below: "OBJECTS AND REASONS: Clause 55; Sub-Clause (iv),Rule 8 of Order 1 deals with representative suits. Under this rule, where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of them may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, on behalf of all of them. Under this rule, where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of them may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, on behalf of all of them. The rule has created a doubt as to whether the party representing others should have the same cause of action as the persons represented by him. The rule is being substituted by a new rule and an explanation is being added to clarify that such persons need not have the same cause of action." There is, therefore, no doubt that the persons who may be represented in a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 need not have the same cause of action. The trial court in the present case was right in permitting the respondent to sue on behalf of all the allottees of Ashok Nagar...." 31. Placing reliance on the above decision it was contended that the plaintiff Association is a society in existence and the Association of persons has the right to file the suit. It was further submitted that since the individual demand notices emanate from the impugned proceedings of the Managing Director, Plaintiff Association was right in challenging the proceedings of the Managing Director and no objection could be taken for filing of the suit by the Association by clubbing the causes of action. 32. The ratio of the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand for the reason that the present suit was not filed in a representative capacity nor any petition under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was filed and leave was obtained to file the suit in a representative capacity. As pointed out earlier, only after service of individual demand notices, the plaintiff Association came to be formed. The plaint also does not indicate as to how the plaintiff Association is justified in clubbing the causes of action. 33. Objection regarding payment of Court fee:-The learned Advocate General submitted that individual demand notices were sent to the allottees and the allottees should have challenged the demand notice sent to individual allottees and for the relief of declaration, the individual allottees should have paid appropriate court fee as contemplated under Section 25(d) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the plaintiff Association had chosen to challenge the proceedings of the Managing Director only to avoid payment of court fee. The learned Additional Advocate General raised strong objection as to the joinder of causes of action and payment of single court fee. 34. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent placing reliance on a judgment of single Judge of this Court in the case of OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF MIDDLE INCOME GROUP UNITS OF PONDICHERRY VS. THE PONDICHERRY HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER (( 2004 (2) CTC 487 ) contended that no separate court fee need be paid as certain clauses with regard to fixing of exorbitant sale price is only challenged on the ground that excess amount was demanded for the plots allotted to the members of plaintiff Association. 35. As pointed out earlier, in pursuance to the proceedings of Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, individual demand notices were sent to the allottees in May 1996 calling upon them to pay the amount as indicated thereon. To challenge the action of the Housing Board to get the sale deed executed, it would have been in order if those individual notices are challenged. Had the individual demand notices been challenged, the allottees/members of plaintiff Association should have paid separate court fee; but that was not done. 36. In so far as the objection taken regarding the payment of court fee, the Housing Board has not raised this point in the written statement nor Housing Board prayed for taking up the issues regarding payment of court fee as the preliminary issue. Therefore, we do not propose to further delve on this and leave the matter as such. 37. Point No.3:- Suit filed for declaration without further relief:-In the plaint, plaintiff Association prayed for (i) declaring that the proceedings of 1st respondent (Ex.P.21) in fixing the cost to the allotments made in favour of the members of plaintiff Association as null and void and unenforceable; (ii) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from demanding and recovering the final cost fixed at Rs.1,99,000/-per ground for the allotments made upto 1989-90 and at the rates mentioned in Para No.43 for the allotments made from 1990-91 to 1995-96 pursuant to Ex.P.21 proceedings. 38. 38. Even though the relief of permanent injunction is stated to be a consequential relief, the appropriate consequential relief would be to get the sale deeds executed in favour of individual allottees/ members of plaintiff Association. The Plaintiff Association has not sought for appropriate further relief of execution of sale deed in favour of individual allottees. Under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, any person entitled to any legal character or any right to any property may institute the suit for declaration and in the declaratory suit the plaintiff need not ask for any further relief. As per the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, no court shall make any such declaration, where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title omits to do so. Granting declaration is discretion of the Court. Where the plaintiff omitted to sue for further relief i.e., getting the sale deed in favour of the individual allottees, the Court may refuse to exercise the discretion in granting the declaration. We find much force in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the plaintiff Association, being able to seek further relief of execution of sale deeds, having omitted to do so, the Court shall refuse to exercise the discretion in granting declaration. Having omitted to ask for further relief of getting the sale deed executed, Plaintiff Association has now come forward with the Writ Petition seeking writ of mandamus directing TNHB to execute the sale deed. In our considered view the Plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of declaration. 39. Point No.5 - Terms and conditions of allotment/lease cum sale agreement:-Exs.P.3 to P.7 are the orders of allotment of house site in Nolambur Neighbourhood scheme to the members of plaintiff Association viz., A.Devaraj, P.Dharmalignam, B.Mohan, V.Govindan Kutty, K.Manoharan respectively. Clause 2 of allotment order makes it clear that the final price of the site due to the increased cost of development charges and provision of amenities etc., will be determined only after all suits filed for the determination of the land cost have been disposed of and after all the land acquisition cases are finally settled and after the cost of amenities, development charges etc., are finalised. Clause 3 states that such fixation of final price will be communicated to the allottee. Clause 3 states that such fixation of final price will be communicated to the allottee. In Clause 3, it is made clear that allotment is made to the allottees on specific understanding that allottee agrees to pay the final cost of the plots as determined by Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In 1993, the allottees were informed that the plots are ready for handing over and called upon them to execute the Lease cum Sale Agreement (in short, "L.C.S"). 40. Ex.P.10 is the format of L.C.S. agreement, which contains the terms and conditions. As per clauses 5 and 9 of L.C.S. agreement, the Managing Director is empowered to arrive at the final price after conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings and after determination of the cost of amenities, development charges. As per clauses 5 and 6 and other clauses, the allotment is subject to the terms and conditions contained in L.C.S. Agreement, whereby the allottees agreed to pay the final price after the determination of the final price. We may usefully refer to the relevant clauses viz., Clauses 5, 6, 15 and 16, which read as under: "5. The price of the property is tentatively fixed as at present and in the peculiar circumstances of Rs..... (Rupees .....) and such tentative price is subject to revision as contemplated herein after in these presents. Such tentative or provisional price of the property shall be paid with interest thereon at ____% per annum in equated monthly instalments/rent spread over a period of five years. The Lessee/Purchaser shall pay towards such tentative price without default a minimum instalment/rent ..... (Rupees ...... ) per month beginning with the month of ..... as stipulated in condition No.2 above. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board shall after due conclusion of every proceeding initiated or likely to be initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, by the erstwhile owners of the property or properties acquired, and after a finality regarding the price of the land so acquired is obtained by conclusive adjudication thereon by the concerned Tribunals and after determination of the cost of amenities, development charges etc., by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as per clause 9 below fix the final price payable by the lessee/Purchaser in respect of the property more fully described in the Schedule hereunder. The decision of the Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board as to the price of the property is final and binding. Such decision of the Managing Director, as to the final price of the property is binding on the Lessee/Purchaser and the Lessee/Purchaser agrees to purchase the property from the lessor/Vendor at the aforesaid price on the terms and conditions set out in this Indenture. 6. The parties hereto agree that on and after the determination of the final price in the manner state above the expression tentative or provisional price appearing in this indenture shall be deemed to have substituted with the expression final price referred to above and ascertained by the Lessor/Vendor and all the other conditions regarding the payment of such tentative price or provisional price by the Lessee/Purchaser shall be deemed to govern the payment and the discharge of the final price, referred to above." .... 15. If the Lessee/Purchaser commits a breach of any of the conditions to be performed by him under these presents or makes default in the payment of rent or other monies payable under these presents, he shall be liable to be evicted from the premises despite previous payments over and above the minimum purchase price and in case the lessee/Purchaser is so evicted, he shall not be entitled to claim from the Lessor/Vendor any compensation towards the value of the improvements or the superstructure erected by him on the property by virtue of and in pursuance of these presents. Non-payments of instalment/rent before the prescribed date shall entitle recovery of such sums under the Revenue Recovery act and/or cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of amounts already paid. 16. The Lessee/Purchaser hereby also confirm that this agreements shall be subject to the terms and conditions already indicated and agreed to under the letter of allotment dated: ...... in and by which the Lessee/Purchaser was allotted this plot in the manner stated in this Agreement....." 41. Agreeing to pay the final price, the allottees have entered into Lease cum Sale Agreement for the allotment and took over the plot. The allottees/members of plaintiff Association have also put up construction. in and by which the Lessee/Purchaser was allotted this plot in the manner stated in this Agreement....." 41. Agreeing to pay the final price, the allottees have entered into Lease cum Sale Agreement for the allotment and took over the plot. The allottees/members of plaintiff Association have also put up construction. Where plot has been allotted at a tentative price subject to final determination of price on completion of the project (i.e., acquisition proceedings and development activities), the Development Authority would be entitled to increase the price, which is reflected in the terms and conditions of the allotment as well as L.C.S. Agreement. All the allottees are bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment/L.C.S.Agreement. Having agreed to pay the final price as per the terms and conditions contained in L.C.S.Agreement, the allottees now cannot turn round and contend that they are not bound to pay the final cost. 42. Incidentally, we may also refer to the prayer sought for in the writ petition in W.P.No.9768 of 2010 i.e., a writ of mandamus to direct the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board to issue sale deed in favour of members of the plaintiff Association. Any such direction to the Housing Board to execute the sale deed at the tentative price will be in violation of the agreed terms and conditions. The Court cannot issue such a writ of mandamus in violation of the agreed terms and conditions between the parties. 43. Point No.6:- Reasoning in the impugned judgment as to the final price - As pointed out earlier, under Ex.P.21 impugned proceedings, land cost was fixed at Rs.1,99,000/-per ground as on 31.3.1996 for the allotment made upto 1989-90 as on 31.3.1996. The break up details per ground are as under:- "Land cost: Rs. 67,690/- Development cost: Rs. 99,200/- Interest: Rs. 32,110/- Total: Rs.1,99,000/- The subsequent rates per ground for the allotments made from 1990-91 to 1995-96 are as under: 44. When the allottees/purchasers have agreed to pay the final price, as per the terms and conditions in LCS agreement, as fixed by the Managing Director of TNHB, the allottees/members of plaintiff Association are bound by the terms of contract. They cannot resile from the terms of the contract and contend that the final price fixed by Tamil Nadu Housing Board is on the higher side. The learned single judge has extracted various clauses in Ex.P.10 -LCS agreement. They cannot resile from the terms of the contract and contend that the final price fixed by Tamil Nadu Housing Board is on the higher side. The learned single judge has extracted various clauses in Ex.P.10 -LCS agreement. Having extracted the terms of Ex.P.10 - L.C.S Agreement and having said that the allotment is subject to the terms and conditions of L.C.S Agreement, in our considered view, the learned single judge ought not to have taken up the exercise of mathematical calculation going into the nuances/minute details of the revenue and expenditure of the Scheme under various heads. 45. After extracting Ex.D.8 - working sheet for the tentative cost and Ex.D.9 working sheet for the final cost, the learned single judge had extracted various calculations given thereon. After going into the details of the calculations, the learned single judge held that in Nolambur neighbourhood scheme, TNHB had a surplus of Rs.56,03,291/-. Observing that quite apart from the amount received from the allottees, TNHB had also received a sum of Rs.18.03 crores as compensation from National Highways Authorities, the learned single Judge held that "without giving credit to the amount in the computation of interest, there was surplus in the hands of TNHB." The learned single judge also observed that in respect of the certain plots, which are in non-saleable area as given in Ex.D.4, the Board was to get a sum of Rs.52.62 crores. The learned single judge held that the Board is left with a surplus apart from the amount available on account of the compensation received from the National Highways Authority of India, which was to be credited to Nolambur Neighbourhood Scheme. 46. As pointed out earlier, as per the terms of L.C.S, the Managing Director has to determine the final price of the site due to the increased cost of development charges and provisions of amenities etc., after all suits filed for determination of land cost have been disposed of and after the cost of amenities of development charges, etc., are finalised. TNHB is having its expertise in fixing the final price. Housing Board is a Tamil Nadu Government Organisation and it cannot arbitrarily fix any price. There is a Special Committee for the finalisation of cost and it fixes the cost taking into account all the factors. TNHB is having its expertise in fixing the final price. Housing Board is a Tamil Nadu Government Organisation and it cannot arbitrarily fix any price. There is a Special Committee for the finalisation of cost and it fixes the cost taking into account all the factors. The land cost is determined based on the highest compensation demanded by any one of the ex-land owners without any prejudice to the Boards interest in the pending Land Acquisition cases. When the allottees have agreed to pay the final price as fixed by the Managing Director, allottees are bound by the terms of the contract and they cannot resile from the terms of the contract and contend that the Housing Board cannot demand the amount as stated in the notice. When the allottees have agreed to pay the amount, in our considered view, the learned single judge ought not to have gone into the analysis of the calculation. 47. Taking us through the terms and conditions of allotment and LCS and also the averments in the written statement, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that based on the Boards proceedings, the difference in final cost was worked out and intimation was given to all the allottees in the Scheme during the month of May/June, 1996 requesting the allottees to pay the difference in final cost as demanded in the said letter. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that even though Tamil Nadu Housing Board is functioning as "no profit no loss organisation", TNHB has fixed the final price taking into account the compensation awarded in the land acquisition cases and expenditure involved for development and other expenses. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the allottees having agreed to pay the final cost cannot resile from the contractual obligation contending that the prices fixed is on the higher side. 48. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent Association contended that in the land acquisition proceedings, price of Rs.1,000/-was taken as a tentative cost per cent and land acquisition proceedings is one of the sheet anchor to raise the cost and in the Court proceedings, the cost was reduced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.760/- per cent. 48. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent Association contended that in the land acquisition proceedings, price of Rs.1,000/-was taken as a tentative cost per cent and land acquisition proceedings is one of the sheet anchor to raise the cost and in the Court proceedings, the cost was reduced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.760/- per cent. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that if Rs.760/-is taken as cost per Cent, for one ground it comes to Rs.4,180/- and if Rs.1,000/-is taken as cost per cent, for one ground it comes to Rs.5,500/-, whereas Tamil Nadu Housing Board had fixed the cost at Rs.67,690/- per ground, which is excessive. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the object of the Housing Board is to provide housing to various groups of people on "no profit no loss basis" and Section 72 of the Land Acquisition Act can be invoked by the Housing Board and the Housing Board, acting for public purpose, should act in the manner which is required to be in consonance with law. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that even though Housing board has power to fix the final price it cannot raise it exorbitantly and the enhancement of the price by 250 percent is unjustified. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SMT.SHEELA DEVI AND OTHERS ( (2003) 12 SCC 497 ). In the said case, as per the terms of the agreement, escalation could not exceed 10 percent as was evident from brochure. In such factual scenario, the Supreme Court held that the plot price cannot be raised to multi-fold. The present case, where the allottees have agreed to pay the final price as fixed by the Managing Director and the case on hand is clearly distinguishable on facts. 49. While considering the submissions of the respondent/plaintiff Association, the learned single judge has referred to Ex.D.9 -working sheet and observed that the actual amount spent is Rs.4,52,12,477/- and given the break-up figures as under:- Tentative cost as per working sheet: Rs. 88,64,677/- Development Expenditure: Rs.3,63,47,800/- Total: Rs.4,52,12,477/- The amount collected from the allottees is Rs.5,08,15,768/-. Pointing out the above calculation, in Paragraph Nos.38 and 39 of the judgment, the learned single judge observed that after meeting expenses there was a surplus of Rs.56,03,291/-. 88,64,677/- Development Expenditure: Rs.3,63,47,800/- Total: Rs.4,52,12,477/- The amount collected from the allottees is Rs.5,08,15,768/-. Pointing out the above calculation, in Paragraph Nos.38 and 39 of the judgment, the learned single judge observed that after meeting expenses there was a surplus of Rs.56,03,291/-. The learned judge further observed that apart from the amount received from the allottees, the appellants/defendants had also received a sum of Rs.18,03,84,600/- by way of compensation from the National Highways Authority of India in respect of transfer of 8.93 acres, which was stated to be a non-saleable area, the learned judge held that the working sheet (Ex.D.9) does not include the amount received from National Highways Authority of India and that the surplus was available at the hands of the defendants and without giving credit to the said surplus in the computation of interest, calculation given in the working sheet is not a right exercise. 50. As pointed out earlier, in our considered view, the learned judge ought not to have gone into the nuances/minute details of the expenditure under various heads. Tamil Nadu Housing Board has its own Special Committee for fixing the land cost. The TNHB has formulated a comprehensive plan and fixed final price by determining the cost of development and also by taking into account the highest compensation demanded by any of the ex.land owners. Merely because the compensation for acquired land was reduced from Rs.1000 to Rs.760/-per Cent, Tamil Nadu Housing Board cannot be faulted in fixing the final price as per Ex.P.21. Reduction of compensation from Rs.1000 to Rs.760/- per Cent cannot be taken as a criterion. Needless to point out that for the compensation amount the Housing Board has to shell out a huge amount by way of solatium, interest and also 12 percent on the compensation amount, cost, legal fees and other incidental expenses by fighting out various Court proceedings. 51. Even though TNHB is acting on "no profit no loss basis, merely because of the subsequent development, it cannot be expected to forego the amount, which is legitimately due to the Housing Board. By taking into consideration certain calculations, the learned single judge seems to have held that there was a surplus of Rs.56,03,291/-. In our considered view, the learned single Judge has erred in saying that there was surplus. By taking into consideration certain calculations, the learned single judge seems to have held that there was a surplus of Rs.56,03,291/-. In our considered view, the learned single Judge has erred in saying that there was surplus. For Nolambur Neighbourhood Scheme, Housing Board is said to have utilised its own funds 875.770 lakhs and the same is reflected in Ex.D.12 working sheet as under: "Total Expenditure Land: Rs .4,21,68,849 Development: Rs. 6,18,02,100 Rs.10,39,70,949 Project Interest : Rs. 305.723 lakhs Less: Proportionate Interest credit Project Interest x Total value of sale upto 1989-90 Total Expenditure 450.10 grds. at Tentative cost of Rs.80,000/- i.e., Rs.360.08 Rs.305.723 x 360.08 = Rs.105.880 lakhs Rs.1039.709 Total Project Interest Rs. 305.723 lakhs Less Interest credit Rs. 105.880 lakhs Net interest Rs. 199.843 lakhs (To be added cost finalisation) Total expenditure Rs.1039.709 lakhs Add Project Interest Rs. 199.843 lakhs Total Rs.1239.552 lakhs Saleable area 138913 M2 Land cost per groundRs.1,98,953 (or) Rs.1,99,000 Total expenditureRs.1239.552 lakhs Total amount collected fromRs. 363.782 lakhs allottee Balance amount utilized from: Boards fund Rs. 875.770 lakhs” 52. Referring to the amount utilised from Boards fund, the learned single judge observed that no details are forthcoming as to how the Boards fund had been utilised. As per Section 110(1) and (2) of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, there must be a settled capital and revenue account for every scheme and the expenditure and realisation should be entered in the receipt of capital and revenue account of the Scheme. The learned single judge held that no details are placed before the Court as to how the Boards general funds Rs.875.770 lakhs has been transferred to the Nolambur Scheme. Accepting the plaintiffs case and faulting the Housing board, the learned single judge held as under:- "... Considering the admitted fact that the Board has a separate fund for each of the schemes for accounting purposes and that no details are placed before this Court that the Board had utilised its funds for the scheme, the calculation given by the plaintiff as to the availability of funds merits acceptance." 53. The learned single judge erred in not considering Ex.D.9 in proper perspective. Ex.D.9 restricts the transfer of Boards general funds of 875.770 lakhs to Nolambur Scheme. The learned single judge erred in not considering Ex.D.9 in proper perspective. Ex.D.9 restricts the transfer of Boards general funds of 875.770 lakhs to Nolambur Scheme. Even though there was no borrowal from other financial institutions, when Boards fund has been utilised, the Housing Board is entitled to charge interest for the general funds so transferred to the particular scheme. As per Section 110(1) and (2) of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, even though there is a settled capital and revenue account for every scheme and expenditure and realisation is entered into the capital and revenue account of that particular scheme, there is no impediment for utilisation of Boards general funds of the Board implemented in specific project. It was not necessary for the Board to place all the necessary details as to how the general funds were transferred to Nolambur Neighbourhood Scheme. Only for demonstrating the reasonableness of the fixation of final price, Exs.D.8 and D.9 working sheets were produced. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to pick up loop holes from those working sheets to substantiate its case. 54. Ex.D.36 is the information furnished to the Secretary of Plaintiff Association under Right to Information Act regarding the acquisition of lands pertaining to Nolambur Scheme acquired from Tamil Nadu Housing Board by National Highways Authority of India. From Ex.P.36, it is seen that for the lands acquired from Tamil Nadu Housing Board, competent authority of National Highways Authority of India has awarded an amount of Rs.18,03,84,600/- on 31.10.2006. The land acquisition from Tamil Nadu Housing Board by National Highways Authority of India and the payment of compensation was in 2006-2007 i.e., long after the suit. While so, Tamil Nadu Housing Board cannot be expected to show the compensation received from National Highways Authority of India as the amount received to show it in the working sheet. What was acquired for National Highways Authority of India is said to be non-saleable area. Merely because the Board has received the compensation from the National Highways Authority of India it does not mean that the same has to be included in fixation of final cost when admittedly at the time of finalisation of land cost there was no acquisition from National Highways Authority of India. Merely because the Board has received the compensation from the National Highways Authority of India it does not mean that the same has to be included in fixation of final cost when admittedly at the time of finalisation of land cost there was no acquisition from National Highways Authority of India. The compensation amount received from National Highways Authority of India would only enure to the benefit of Housing Board and the allottees cannot seek to derive benefit from out of it. 55. In Para No.39 of the Judgment, The learned single judge observed that " ...... Admittedly there is no borrowal by the defendants........." Even in the plaint at paragraph No.23, plaintiff has categorically stated that the Housing Board has borrowed amount from HUDCO. In his chief examination, D.W.1 has also stated that for the Nolambur Scheme, Housing Board has borrowed from HUDCO. In the written statement, it is specifically stated that Nolambur Scheme was not implemented by borrowing amount from HUDCO. There seems to be no clarity regarding the amount borrowed from HUDCO in implementation of Nolambur Scheme. But the learned single judge was not right in saying that there was no borrowal by the defendant. When the Board has utilised its own funds to the tune of Rs.875.770 lakhs the Board is entitled to charge interest on the said funds. The rate at which the Board should charge the interest is decided by its financial advisor. The learned single judge has not appreciated the working sheet in proper perspective. 56. In our considered view, the learned single judge was not right in holding that the final price fixed is excessive. The working sheets -Exs.D.8, D.9 and D.12 clearly show as to how the final price at Rs.1,99,000/-per ground was arrived at for the allotment made upto 1989-90. Plaintiff has not made out substantial ground to hold that the said final price is excessive. Applying the then prevailing rate of interest then prevailing, the Housing Board is justified in increasing the final price at Rs.2,28,900/-; Rs.2,63,300; Rs.3,08,100/-; Rs.3,60,500/-; Rs.4,20,800/-; Rs.4,93,600/-for the allotments made during the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. 57. Re. Contention: Capitalisation of interest:-The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further contended that the Housing Board acting at "no profit no loss basis" is not justified in capitalising the interest. 58. 57. Re. Contention: Capitalisation of interest:-The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further contended that the Housing Board acting at "no profit no loss basis" is not justified in capitalising the interest. 58. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant placing reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, PUDA AND ANOTHER VS. SHABNAM VIRK (MRS.) ( (2006) 4 SCC 74 ) submitted that having agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment and L.C.S. Agreement , members of the respondent Association are liable to pay the amount stipulated in the allotment letter and L.C.S agreement. Learned counsel placing reliance on another decision of Supreme Court in the case of SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ASHA RANI ( (1996) 8 SCC 487 ), submitted that as per the terms and conditions of allotment and L.C.S agreement, the final price of the site due to the increased cost of development charges and provision of amenities will be determined only after all the suits filed for the determination of the the Land Acquisition Cases are finally settled and after the cost of amenities, development charges etc. are finalised and hence the allottees are required to pay the final price as demanded and now cannot turn round and contend otherwise. 59. In KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD & OTHERS VS. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, NELLIKODE HOUSING COLONY ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS, considering the case of allotment by Kerala State Housing Board, the Supreme Court held that the allottees will be liable to pay interest to the appellant Board on the differential amount between the tentative price and the final price at the rate of 8% per annum. Applying the ratio of the said decision, the members of the plaintiff Association are liable to pay interest. 60. The allotment is made subject to the terms and conditions of the allotment. In paragraph No.7 of the allotment order, it is clearly stated that the allottee has to pay interest at the rate of 14 percent per annum on the unpaid balance and in case of default, the allottee has to pay penal interest. Clause 7 reads as under: "7. In paragraph No.7 of the allotment order, it is clearly stated that the allottee has to pay interest at the rate of 14 percent per annum on the unpaid balance and in case of default, the allottee has to pay penal interest. Clause 7 reads as under: "7. The remaining 75% of the tentative cost furnished in condition No.1 above amounting to Rs.12,667/- (Rupees Twelve thousand six hundred and sixty seven only) shall be paid to you in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.304/-(Rupees Three hundred and four only) each with interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the unpaid balance on or before the 10th day of every month beginning from the month of Handing over of the plot penal Interest is payable by you at 12% per annum on all belated payments. The refund of the 25% cost paid by you will not ordinarily be considered under any circumstances and such refunds will be subject to the condition that the loss or other damages incurred by the State Housing board on any account will be recovered from out of this amount and the Refund of the balance left, if any is governed by the rules and regulations prescribed by State Housing Board from time to time. Non-payment of the Instalments referred to, on or before the prescribed date entails, recovery of the Instalments under the Revenue Recovery Act and/or also cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the amounts paid already and/or eviction under section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act." When viewed in the light of Clause 7 of the Allotment Order, the members of the plaintiff Association are not right in assailing the levy of interest including the capitalisation of interest. 61. Yet another point is relevant to be noted. The learned single Judge has referred to the judgement in C.S.No.385 of 1985 dated 1.7.1991 in extenso. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the said judgment dated 1.7.1991 made in C.S.No.385 of 1985 was not marked as evidence in the present suit. Even though the said judgment is said to have been placed before the single judge, since the same was not marked as evidence, Tamil Nadu Housing Board had no opportunity of explaining facts involved in the said judgment. Even though the said judgment is said to have been placed before the single judge, since the same was not marked as evidence, Tamil Nadu Housing Board had no opportunity of explaining facts involved in the said judgment. In our considered view, the learned single Judge was not right in relying upon the said judgment dated 1.7.1991 in C.S.No.385 of 1985, which pertains to some other scheme. 62. As pointed out earlier, for the plots allotted in the year 1988-89, the final price was fixed at Rs.1,99,000/- per ground and for the subsequent years i.e., 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 by levying the interest/increase, the final price was fixed at Rs.2,28,900/, Rs.2,63,300/-, Rs.3,08,100/-, Rs.3,60,500/-, Rs.4,21,800/-and Rs.4,93,600/- respectively. Referring the same, the learned single Judge held that "...... irrespective of the year of allotment, all the allottees are to be treated uniformly......." As per the working sheet showing tentative cost and final cost arrived with break up details, the rate of interest levied by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is shown. When the Housing Board has invested huge amount in the property and fixed the final price at Rs.1,99,000/- per ground for the year 1989-90, for the subsequent years of allotment, the Housing Board cannot be expected to allot the plots at the same rate and suffer loss. If Housing Board is to allot the plots in the original rate as in the year 1988-89 itself, the Housing Board cannot accomplish its object of providing affordable housing to all groups of the Society. The learned single judge was not right in saying that irrespective of the years of allotment, all the allottees are to be treated uniformly and that finding is liable to be set aside. 63. While forming the Scheme for the acquired land, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board makes provision for roads, amenities for public purpose site, school site, etc., The amenities are only intended to benefit the allottees in the long run and hence all the sites are taken as non-saleable area. When the Housing board has framed a huge project of both saleable and non-saleable area, the learned single judge was not right in going into the minute details of the calculation and hold that the Housing Board had a surplus amount. The findings of the learned single judge on Issue Nos.3, 6 and 7 cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. The findings of the learned single judge on Issue Nos.3, 6 and 7 cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 64. Limitation: - The impugned proceedings was passed by the Managing Director on 19.4.1996. Individual demand notices were sent on 31.5.1996. Suit was filed on 21.6.2000 i.e., nearly four years after the individual demand notices. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the suit having been filed nearly four years after the demand notices the same is barred by limitation under Article 137. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the suit ought to have been dismissed as being barred by limitation. 65. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiff Association would contend that immediately after the receipt of Ex.P.21 proceedings as well as individual demand notices, the respondent/plaintiff Association has filed the writ petition - W.P.No.11879 of 1996 and the said Writ petition came to be disposed of on 3.8.2000. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act the time spent in the writ petition has to be taken into account and if that time is taken into account, the suit is not barred by limitation. 66. We do feel that as per Article 137, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date of receipt of individual demand notices on which date, right to sue accrued. However, by perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that in the trial Court no issue was framed regarding limitation and therefore we do not propose to go into this aspect any further. 67. To sum up our conclusions, there is non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 138 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, which has not been kept in view by the learned single judge. The learned single judge also did not keep in view that there was misjoinder of causes of action. The learned single judge did not properly appreciate the terms and conditions of the allotment order and L.C.S. Agreement in which the allottees agreed to pay the final price. As discussed earlier, the learned single judge erred in going into the minute details of expenditure. The learned single judge did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and therefore the findings of the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. 68. As discussed earlier, the learned single judge erred in going into the minute details of expenditure. The learned single judge did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and therefore the findings of the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. 68. Point No.4 (W.P.No.9768 of 2010):-The respondent/ plaintiff Association has filed Writ petition in W.P.No.9768 of 2010 seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to issue sale deeds in favour of the members of the plaintiff Association. As discussed earlier, in the suit, the plaintiff Association had omitted to seek for the consequential relief of execution of sale deeds. By so omitting the consequential prayer in the suit, after the suit was decreed, the plaintiff Association has filed writ petition on 20.4.2010. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is only to circumvent what has been omitted in the suit. 69. As discussed earlier, in accordance with the terms and conditions of allotment and LCS Agreement, the allottees have agreed to pay the final price fixed by the Managing Director. The issuance of any direction to execute the sale deed as per the tentative price would be in violation of concrete terms and conditions of allotment and LCS Agreement. 70. Article 226 is an equitable remedy. Having agreed to pay the final price as fixed by the Managing Director, the members of plaintiff Association cannot seek for writ of mandamus compelling the Housing Board to execute the sale deed at the tentative cost as indicated in the order of allotment. 71. In the result, the judgement dated 25.9.2008 made in C.S.No.783 of 2000 is set aside and the Original Side Appeal No.252 of 2010 is allowed with costs throughout. W.P.No.9768 of 2010 is dismissed.